Shermana
Heretic
New International Version (©1984)
Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly.
Luke 1:6
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did Jesus say he was God???
- Thread starter Muffled
- Start date
New International Version (©1984)
Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly.
Luke 1:6
Jesus commands us to be perfect. If we cannot achieve it He will not give us this command. He sent the HS to His faithful ones to be perfect.
Jesus commands us to love our enemy.
sorry this is just excuse. Jesus' word it clear, friend. "love your enemy"
Sorry, Jesus' word is clear. "love your enemy"
If you build your faith without being obedient to Jesus, it will not stand.
that's not what Jesus says. He says to be faithful to Him until the end.
Faith without deeds is dead, dean faith cannot save you, friend.
Sorry, this is just beginning of faith. You have stay faithful to Jesus until the ened.
do you know John Calvin whom you follow? He ordered to kill non-trin Christian.
I will copy and paste about what Calvin did. I dont belong to any organization because I concluded that organizations' goal is not being faithful to Jesus, after serving and joined several major denominations for five years..
My family is my church.
blessings.
I dont think He said that. John the Baptist did.
Yes, Jesus does not approve of lip servers.
Shermana
Heretic
Thank you, I stand corrected.
We have to remember that Jesus is perfect. He does not sugarcoat evil deeds. He say it like it is. We should not talk like this because we are so imperfect and sinful.
F0uad
Well-Known Member
How do you know? The manuscript is not even original.. How many decades is it after the event?
F0uad
Well-Known Member
Well i asked two questions when we had the discussion and you did not reply to them in the last 3 Replies to me so please do now?
How are these words symbolic in those verses?
"Hunger'' and ''Because it was not time''. I am willing to drop the argument as a whole if you could just tell me..
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I thought that I had answered every question given but was unsure, until now. I have answered this before. You are asking an invalid question. Every single word in the literal does not have a symbolic application. I am sure that this very simplistic idea will not be accepted so I will prove it.
Here is a famous parable:
13 That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake. 2 Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore. 3 Then he told them many things in parables, saying: A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a cropa hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9 Whoever has ears, let them hear.
http://bible.cc/matthew/12-39.htm
There is no symbolic counterpart to the literal hundred, sixty, or thirty terms used here. Does a literal "fell" have a symbolic meaning? Revelation does not fall from the sky.
Matthew 24:32-34 (NKJV) "Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near.
So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near; at the doors! Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/mat08.html
This is obviously a parable, he even says it is. Yet the literal term tender has no direct symbolic counterpart.
Luke 21:29-30 (NKJV) "Then He spoke to them a parable: Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near."
This is another example showing that fig trees are used as metaphors for Israel (or Judah).
Here is another with its explanation.
The Parable of the Weeds
24 Jesus told them another parable: The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27 The owners servants came to him and said, Sir, didnt you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?
28 An enemy did this, he replied.
The servants asked him, Do you want us to go and pull them up?
29 No, he answered, because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.
You will notice that "heads" does not appear in the explanation.
What does tied in bundles corrospond to. Not the judgement. No is tied up in bundles on the last day.
You can invent some corresponding meaning for heads or bundles I guess.
I could say that his hunger in our verses means he was hungry for Israel to bear fruit. Your idea about it not being time for figs I have already shown wrong. It was the time for figs; it was not time for the harvesting of figs. Figs appeared right before the leaves. Since the tree had leaves it should have had figs. I could say that this meant that Jesus thought Israel should have produced fruit but they haven't. However this is pointless speculation and not needed. Parables are parabolic because they represent things. If every word had a direct meaning it would not be a parable but a literal. I have only given a few but there are countless examples where what was given as symbolic was not in a 1 to 1 correspondence to what it represented. For example The Passover in Egypt was symbolic of how the blood of the lamb (Christ) saves us even though the ones without the blood on the doorpost were killed. What does the doorpost represent? Nothing.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Why do you think this? I looked for this verse being not original and I can't even find a site saying that at all. I even looked up the common verses Islam likes to say were not original and it is not on the list. I traced it back in Codex Bezae Cantabrigensis to the 400s AD in 5 minutes.How do you know? The manuscript is not even original.. How many decades is it after the event?
F0uad
Well-Known Member
Wait what Matthew's gospel to 400 AD?
Do you belief that the NWT is ''Original'' as in being written by the apostles of Jesus(pbuh)?
1robin
Christian/Baptist
You said that verse was not original. I could not find a single site, not even a Muslim one that even claimed that. I said that within just five minutes I had found a codex from 400AD that had it and I am sure I can go back to about 100AD if I spent some time on it but wanted you to tell me who it was that is claiming this and why. I am not even saying I disagree, there are a few dozen verses of so like this that have been added or modified at a later point. It is not much of a problem because they are all known and indicated.
I believe they were. I can't prove it. I think there is about an 80% chance they apostles wrote them and maybe a 20% chance they didn't. I read a few things lately that were interesting. The apostles were alive when these Gospels were written. If written by someone else why are there no documents anywhere where they were saying "Wait a minute I never wrote this". There are no competitors for authorship. There is no one else to consider. Also several textual critics pointed out that aside of scribal error the Gospels are accurate history recorded by or from eyewitnesses. Why does the addition of according to Mark make it any more accurate? It is either accurate or not no matter even if by some slight chance some were not by their claimed authors. I just finished a short debate on time frames for the Gospels and I was surprised to learn that there are many reasons besides the temples destruction to put them all pre- 70AD. For example John speaks about the sheep gate currently standing but it was destroyed by the Romans around 70AD.
Again I wanted to know why you thought that verse was one of the precious few that is not original.
BTW I have another question. I hope we can both agree that the Quran says the Bible should be used to evaluate the Quran to determine if it is correct. If the bible is so corrupted how would someone in the 6th century have known what was corrupted and what was original?
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I assume you meant that Zachariah and Elizabeth. Being upright is similar to being righteous. It means in what category God holds us. We can be "approved" of by God and still be far from perfect. Abraham was deemed righteous by a statement of faith alone yet he continually made mistakes. Moses was upright before God yet messed up so bad he could not enter the Promised Land. Zachariah did not even believe God on at least one occasion.
Because of Zechariah's doubt he would be struck dumb and "not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed". Consequently, when he went out to the waiting worshippers in the temple's outer courts, he was unable to speak the customary blessing (Luke 1:1822).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zechariah_(priest)
To say someone is upright or righteous is to say they are in an approved status with God. To say someone is perfect is to say flawless. Only Christ meets that criterion.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Since you could not provide a single example of this perfection in the entire recorded history of man yet for some reason insist that is the standard then you, me, and every human who ever lived will go to hell and Christ wasted his time.
Is that why God ordered war after war and even demanded that the every man, women, child, and beast be killed? The NT contains personal not corporate commands and demands they be evaluated with a little common sense. By your ridiculous standard there would have never been a Christian US to save even Israel a few times. We would never have fought King George to get out of the messed up Church of England. We would have never been able to free the slaves, We would not have stopped Germany from defeating Christian western Europe in WW1. Hitler would have conquered the world instituted the complete annihilation of every Jew on Earth and performed his diabolical medical experiments and euthanatization in every city on Earth. We would not have been here to stop the USSR from spreading atheistic communism over the entire Earth. We would have let Hussein take Kuwait and keep killing 100s of thousands of his own people. Lastly we would not have been able to stop Islam from making the whole world into a Islamic caliphate.
This hyper literal exegesis devoid of common sense is despicable. Any verse may not be used in isolation, it must be considered within the overall narrative.When Saul had not done what God asked Saul to destroy the Amalekites Saul chose to do what you suggest. He left the King and Queen and many people alive. When Samuel showed up he said that because of this GOD had torn the kingdom from Saul and rejected him. He himself cut off the Kings head but the pregnant Queen escaped. She had a son named Haman. Haman became a high court official in Persia. He talked Xerxes into issuing an order to kill every Jew in Persia. Persia controlled 4/5ths of the known world. It was only Esther that prevented this annihilation of God's people.
The only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing and that is exactly what you are suggesting. Even Christ told his apostles to get some swords and protect him as he prayed until he was ready to go. Again Christs command is personal not corporate. You are getting agency confused with mechanism and epistomology confused with ontology.
That is exactly the polar opposite from what that verse says. Let me make this clear before it is used as always as a diversion. Of course obedience is good and should be striven for. It however is not what saves us.
New International Version (©1984)
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God.
http://bible.cc/ephesians/2-8.htm
How does anyone earn a gift. What kind of gift is given and then taken back if it is not earned. That is not a gift it is a provisional reward. It says specifically salvation is not from what we do. It is grace alone. The definition of grace: is to receive something that is not earned.
Of course he does, is he supposed to say "believe don't believe who cares". He also says that when we are born again he will come to us and NEVER LEAVE US OR FORSAKE US. The pathetic reply to this by works salvation folks is that he does not leave us we leave him but that is nonsense. If I turn right and he does not stay with me then he lied.
I knew this was on the way. The book of James is like 10% of the NT, Pauls writings are about 60% and Paul who knew more about the law than any apostle spoke more on grace than any of them. James is contrasting two types of faith. One which is a dead faith will not produce works, the other which is true faith will. How many and of what kind is left open.
Then why is the Holy spirit which is given at the moment we are born again said to be the "down payment" or guarantee of our heavenly home. I can do this all day but am short on time right now. In the end and I have done this enough to have the debate by myself you will give maybe a few dozen verses you erroneously believe show that we must meet some obedience standard to merit what Christ gave to us the moment we believed. I will give at least a hundred very clear verses that say the opposite and you will simply prefer to follow your dozen and ignore the hundred or so I give. I just wonder why you wish to believe in something that is logically impossible.
How many works?
What kind of work?
What if I am perfect until I say one curse word 5 seconds before I get hit by a bus?
What does the bushman in Africa do if he gets saved when a missionary comes around since there might not be a Bible within a hundred miles of him to learn what laws he is to follow?
In fact please simply list of what works it is I must do to be considered faithfull and I will show you why it utterly fails.
Works salvation is an incoherent mess that undermines everything Christ did. It is arrogant and self centered not Christ centered and makes Christianity no different than Judaism or Islam.
I know of John Calvin and I do not agree with most of what he says. Do not arbitrarily assign me allegiances I do not have and then condemn them. Calvin believed in determinism or predestination and I do not. You claiming he killed someone does not mean he did. Posy some evidence for this but that is just one man. You said trin Churches persecuted non trin churches. Prove it.
I have no issue with you not being in a particular Church but you claim that they are all intent of not being faithful is just wrong.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Nope, they both did. The only class of people who Jesus ever condemned were the ones who acted and claimed they were righteous but did not know him or the father.
New International Version (©1984)
"Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks
Matthew 12:34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.
By the way notice that Jesus did not say producing good fruit makes a tree good. He only said that is how a good tree will recognised as good. Good works do not make us Chrsitians, they indicate to the world we are Christians.
The Pharisees were said to always act righteous and obey the law but their hearts were ungodly. They followed the law but did not even understand the spirit behind the law. Nicodemus was a good Pharisee. He obeyed the law and loved the poor. He sincerely sought God and his laws. If any man could get to heaven by being obedient it was this man. However when he went to see Jesus and asked how he could enter the kingdom of God, Christ did not say be obedient he said be born again. He said how could Nicodemus act so righteous and teach others the law and not know this simple truth. Most NT scholars say that Paul studied under Gamiliel, one of Israels greatest experts on the law. Paul knew more about the law and was more obedient to it than all the apostles put together and he wrote more on grace than all of them put together. Hopefully you are not presumptuous enough to claim that Paul was not headed to heaven yet Paul himself said he was the chief of sinners. Of course we should be obedient and of course we are not. If you depend on the law for salvation you are undermine everything Christ did and Paul points that out in detail. Of course you works guys usually invent some arbitrary reason to reject Paul.
F0uad
Well-Known Member
Ok this is all nice but how is 100 AD even close to the event and how could that even be written by a Apostle himself? Even Christian historians and scholars such as F.F Bruce and Metzger don't belief that the Gospels are written by the apostles but you can belief what you want. We don't have anything from the 1st or 2nd century maybe except 4 manuscripts in length of 1 little chapter. I advice you took take a look on what kind of "Manuscripts'' we really posses before making such bold statements.
As for the Quran if you want to discuss it or debate it open an thread and ask us Muslim how we interpret those verses first.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Back up here. This particular discussion began because you said those verses were made centuries later. I asked how you knew that. Since then you have been all over the place. I am very well aware that Christians are honest enough to admit that the Bible has a small percentage of its verses that are not original. However that is a general claim that does not prove your specific one. You claimed it wasn't original and so you must at least attempt to show how it is you have decided that. It is your burden not mine. I am very familiar with how those verses are translated and as Shabir indicated it poses vast problems. Shabir said (and you know I think he is the best by far in Islam, although his explanation here was atrocious) that any verse that is not consistent with the Quran is wrong. Forgetting how absurd a method that is for a moment, he was saying that people in 700AD were to get a Bible and judge the Quran. They were however supposed to reject anything inconsistent with the Quran as wrong and use only what was consistent to judge the Quran. That is about as silly and circular as possible, but that is a side note. I could not find a single site of any kind that even attempted to claim Math 12:34 is a later addition. Where did you get that? I am not even trying to say your wrong, I wanted to see if I agree for my own studies. Why did you say this: The manuscript is not even original, how many decades is it after the event? Are you simply saying a particular copy was not an original so how do we know this verse is original? Or are you saying this is a verse that Islam does not like and so it must be a later addition? If you will ever answer the first question I will respond to your others.
F0uad
Well-Known Member
Why are you twisting everything around? Typical you..
I never said that those verses are made up later you gave them a date not me, i asked for evidence that those are ''original'' stop putting words in my mouth that i never uttered. Moreover your debating yourself why even mention Shabir in your reply are you really that obsessed with him? Furthermore textual criticism has nothing to do with translations so you totally miss-presented Shabir here. Where did i claim that Matthew was a addition again putting words in my mouth. I am not going to answer your ridiculous questions because i never made such claims to start with.
So let me get this straight you are saying that a verse that is 100 years older then the event is probably written by a apostle himself?
You haven't even addressed anything i said so i don't feel guilty for not addressing your points.
Last edited:
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe that is illogical. Why would one doubt what is said simply because it isn't what it was conceived to be?
Muslims have many misconceptions about the Qu'ran. Does that mean everything in the Qu'ran should be doubted?